Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20110221 SPECIAL MEETING CALLED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION 1 1 �— Date February 22, 2011 Call to order at: l m. I. Councilmembers present: Councilmembers not present: Mick Ireland {5 Mick Ireland Steve Skadron - Steve Skadron ❑ Dwayne Romero ® Dwayne Romero 2 -Torre Irl Torre 0 -Derek Johnson cd 1 erek Johnson II. Motion to go into executive session by ff A ; seconded b ' GC_ Other persons present: AGAINST: FOR: n Mick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland ❑ Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron ❑ Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero n Torre n Torre ❑ Derek Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ';"" i THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF: C.R.S. 24 -6- 402(4) 0 / p1 %, - (Q( bat- he purchase, acquisition, lease, 4 0 t a) tr. er, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest b Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal ques ions. (c) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations. (d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; 0 ► etermining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; an. ructing negotiators; (f) (I) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting. IV. ATTESTATION: The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney- client commp -tion: - -`' .4, & . The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussions in this executi session were Iim' to the topic(s) described in Section I11, above. " ein Adjourned at: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council ((�� FROM: Phil Overeynder, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Director `n THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: February 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 22, 2011 RE: Water Utility Connection Fees for Affordable Housing REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that City Council establish a water utility connection fee (tap fee) policy for a new category of affordable housing and to clarify administrative practices used for other categories of affordable housing projects. Staff also requests Council direction on a proposed Municipal Code revision that would codify these policies. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1990, Council adopted Ordinance 8, which established tap fee waivers for 100% qualified affordable housing projects. In June 1995, Council adopted Ordinance 95- 27 that specified the variable waiver amount to be applied to mixed projects (free market and affordable units) in the AH Zone District. At that time, projects in the AH Zone District were new to the land use code and there was no precedent on how to handle mixed projects with both free market and affordable components. BACKGROUND: The affordable housing program has developed over time to include a variety of different project types. The first were projects that were 100% affordable. In the mid - 1990's projects that included a mix of free market and affordable units were included in the municipal code. Recently, the Land Use Code has been amended to include a new category (Section 26.540 of the Municipal Code) of affordable housing that permits credits to be purchased by businesses and others that desire to participate in an affordable project. Each time that a new housing category was added to the Municipal Code, Council has reviewed its existing policy on tap fee waivers and adapted the code to recognize the new type of affordable housing. The first development under Municipal Code Section 26.540 was recently approved by City Council. Because there was no code section directly applicable to this type of development, it was necessary to interpret the code without the benefit of a specific policy that addressed these Page 1 of 3 developments. It is expected that there will be more such developments in the future and it is appropriate for Council to adopt a revision to the code to address such circumstances. Projects in the AH Zone that consist of a unit mix (70% affordable and 30% free market) provide for a "sliding scale" fee waiver that ranges from 100% for category 1 units and 0% for Category 4 and Resident Occupied Units within the development. More recently, new affordable housing categories (i.e. Categories 5 and 6) have been recognized by the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority. These housing categories were added subsequent to the last code revision dealing with tap fee waivers. It is appropriate for Council to adopt specific means to address these situations under the schedule of tap fee waivers provided for projects consisting of mixed free market and affordable housing units. DISCUSSION: In addition to the Municipal Code sections outlined above, administrative practices have been developed by City Managers under previous administrations. These administrative practices further interpreted discussions that occurred during public hearings adopting the ordinance, but do not show up in the Municipal Code language. These administrive practices have carried forward from the date of adoption till the present time. The most important example of this is based on an August 26, 1993 memo from City Manager, Amy Margerum.This memo provided direction to the water, planning and housing staff to meet additional criteria in providing for tap fee waivers. Specifically that memo indicates that a project that qualifies as 100% affordable must meet the criteria that "the project cannot be mitigation for or associated with free market development." This section of the memo goes on to state the project "must be 100% affordable ", which implies that the understanding at the time of adoption was that projects that were constructed as mitigation did not meet the definition of "affordable housing" under this code section. Yet the language of the Municipal Code provides no guidance about how projects constructed as mitigation for other development should be treated with respect to tap fee waivers. It's possible that this was an interpretation of the code provision that requires that "qualified employee housing" means "projects that are 100% affordable and are administered by the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority." New Housing Categories. The newer Category 5 and 6 units which are part of a mixed free market and affordable housing project in the All Zone District are not presently included in the "sliding scale" schedule of tap fee waivers. Staff believes that these units fall between Category 4 and R.O. units, both of which receive no tap fee waivers when they are part of a mixed project containing both affordable and free market components. Staff believes it would therefore be appropriate to treat Categories 5 and 6 the same manner, with no tap fee waiver for these unit types under the "sliding scale" schedule for tap fee waivers. Past Administrative Practices. As stated previously, guidance from the City Manager described in the 1993 memo established an administrative practice for tap fee waivers. Projects have been reviewed to establish whether they serve as mitigation for other developments before granting tap fee waivers as 100% affordable. An example of this is the housing mitigation required for the Hyatt Grand Aspen. Mitigation projects for this development included the Bavarian Lodge and were not provided the benefit of any tap fee waivers when they were constructed. Page 2 of 3 Issues Associated With Section 26.540 Projects. This new category of affordable housing allows the project to utilize innovative methods of project financing. Credits from the project can be sold to community businesses that wish to provide employee housing for their employees. Some of these businesses may not have any obligation to provide affordable housing as part of another development approval. However, some of these businesses or individuals may be under such an obligation to provide a specified number or performance level for affordable units as part of a separate development approval. The administrative practice of ensuring that none of the units are constructed as mitigation for a separate development project therefore poses issues for future projects under Municipal Code Section 26.540. Because these types of development can include both units that serve as mitigation and without this requirement, it appears that they are most like the mixed AH Zone project with both affordable and free market units. If it is Council's desire to ensure that consideration for tap fee waivers be provided for these new types of housing development, staff recommends that the same sliding scale of waivers used for AH Zone projects. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Since Municipal Code Section 26.540 provides a new type of affordable unit that was not anticipated when staff prepared the 2011 budget, providing tap fee waivers at any level discussed above would not reduce the level budgeted for tap fees in the current budget year. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council consider the proposed Municipal Code revisions attached to this memo. These code revisions include adding fee "sliding scale" fee waiver definitions for Housing Categories 5 and 6 as discussed above. It also includes provision to apply the same set of sliding scale tap fee waivers to Section 26.540 projects as presently apply to mixed projects in the AH Zone district. ALTERNATIVES: An alternative to staff's recommendation for affordable units, Section 26.540 developments, is to treat them in the same manner as 100% affordable units, without consideration of whether they are being used to mitigate housing impacts associated with another development. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to set Ordinance Number for a public hearing. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachments: A - Exhibit One — Proposed Ordinance 11 -_ Page 3of3 ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 25.12.160 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE WAIVER AND EXEMPTION OF UTILITY INVESTMENT CHARGES FOR CERTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clarify the types of affordable housing projects eligible for exemption from and waivers of the utility investment charges when connecting to the City of Aspen's water system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 25.12.160 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 25.12.160. Waivers and exemptions from utility investment charges for certain employee housing projects. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to identify those affordable housing projects that may be eligible for exemption from and waivers of the utility investment charges when connecting to the City of Aspen's water system. There are three types of affordable housing projects that are eligible for exemptions or waivers: (i) projects that are determined to be Qualified Employee Housing as defined herein; (ii) affordable housing projects that are eligible to receive Affordable housing Credits pursuant to Chapter 26.540 of the Municipal Code; and (iii) projects that consist of a mix of affordable housing units subject to the Aspen/Pitldn County Housing Authority Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time; and, unrestricted (free market) units. To be eligible for an exemption or waiver pursuant to this section of the Municipal Code a project shall have installed in all units properly maintained and continuously operable water conservation devices and practices as designated from time to time by the City Council by ordinance, resolution, or by regulations issued by the City Manager. (b) Defmitions. As used in this Code, unless the context requires otherwise, the following terms shall be defined as follows: (i) Qualified Employee Housing shall be defined as publicly or privately constructed and owned projects which: * are not constructed for mitigation purposes or which receive any form of Affordable Housing Credits such as those set forth at Chapter 26.540 of the Municipal Code; and * are composed of one hundred percent (100%) employee housing units; and, * are deed restricted to ensure that all units are subject to, and administered by, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time; and, * are maintained as qualified employee housing; and (ii) The Fee Waiver Schedule refers to the following schedule of the percent of the utility investment charges that may be waived based upon the category of the units within the affordable housing project. Housing Categories as referenced in the Aspen/Pitkin Fee Waiver County Housing Authority Guidelines, as may be Level amended from time to time. Category 1 100% Fee Wavier Category 2 70% Fee Waiver Category 3 40% Fee Waiver Category 4 0% Fee Waiver Category 5 0% Fee Waiver Category 6 0% Fee Waiver Resident Occupied 0% Fee Waiver Free Market Units 0% Fee Waiver (iii) Affordable and Free Market Mix shall be defined as a project that: * consist of a mix of both deed restricted housing to ensure that all units are subject to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time and unrestricted housing (free market) units; and, * were not constructed for mitigation purposes; and * consists of units approved by the City Council in the AH Zone District. (c) Qualified Employee Housing. Qualified Employee housing shall be exempt from any utility investment charges when connection is made to the City of Aspen's water system. (d) Projects Receiving Affordable Housing Credits. Projects that receive Affordable Housing Credits pursuant to Chapter 26.540 of the Municipal Code are eligible for a waiver of the percentage of the total utility investment charge as set forth in the Fee Waiver Schedule. (e) Affordable and Free Market Mix. Projects that are determined to be Affordable and Free Market Mix of units are eligible for a waiver of the percentage of the total utility investment charge as set forth in the Fee Waiver Schedule. 2 (f) Revocation of Exemptions and Waivers. In the event that Qualified Employee Housing units, projects receiving Affordable Housing Credits, or projects that are considered Affordable and Free Market Mix projects, receive an exemption or a waiver in accordance with this section, and thereafter fail to continue being affordable housing units as contemplated herein; or, the water conservation devices and practices are not be installed as required, are not properly maintained or continuously operable, the developer of such units and the owners thereof shall be jointly and severally liable to reimburse the City for the cost of the utility investment charges exempted by this Section. The City Manager shall establish a method of accomplishing this payment so as not to be unduly burdensome on the developer or owners. Section 2. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 3. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _ day of , 2011, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Y 3 ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW- saved: 2/17/11- water - ah waivers.doc 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks and Open Space -t___. Jeff Woods, Manager Parks and Recreation 1 CC: Tricia Aragon, City Engineer Q April Long, Storm Water Manager Scott Chism, Parks Planner DATE OF MEMO: February 15, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 22, 2011 RE: Rio Grande Park Storm Water Ponds Improvement SUMMARY: At this time we are requesting you to approve environmental enhancements to the storm water ponds including constructed wetlands proposed at Rio Grande Park in association with planned improvements by Theatre Aspen in 2011. This request includes the phased funding for improvements, including $200,000 for Phase 1 as outlined in this memorandum. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION The last Council Action specific to Rio Grande Park was the authorization to approve a renewable 10 -year lease agreement between the City of Aspen and Theatre Aspen that occurred at a January 3, 2011 work session. During that work session City Council directed staff to develop an improved solution to the storm water ponds at Rio Grande Park that would complement the John Denver Sanctuary and planned Theatre Aspen tent improvements. City Council also reviewed proposed storm water improvements to Rio Grande Park at a July 7, 2003 work session and May 4, 2004 work session. During both work sessions, City Council determined that the development of storm water environmental improvements at Rio Grande Park and Jennie Adair Wetlands were worthwhile to pursue. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen has made a strong commitment to environmental initiatives., including managing storm water. City Council has directed staff to implement long -term solutions to ensure that the community is responsible for clean storm water discharge into the Roaring Fork Watershed. An equally important goal is to enhance the ecological integrity of areas where stormwater improvements are proposed. Storm water from the central core of the city and Aspen Mountain currently discharges into the Roaring Fork River from three major drainages. One of the three drainages (`East Drainage') flows from the street gutters and into Rio Grande Park near the Rio Grande Recycle Center before reaching the river. Another of the three drainages (`Central Drainage') flows under Mill Street to directly discharge into the river. The third major drainage ('West Drainage') flows into the Jennie Adair Wetlands to allow for water quality enhancement and flood control before discharging into the river. Page 1 of 4 The existing basins at Rio Grande Park that comprise the basic outfall of the East Drainage do not function adequately to mitigate storm water flow to the river but have tremendous potential to improve water quality (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: Rio Grande Park is a truly special park within the greater Aspen parks and open space system. It is one of the largest open green spaces within city limits along the Roaring Fork River and is the location for a wide variety of passive and active recreational opportunities. Much of the recreational use of Rio Grande Park is already programmed: Primary uses include a rugby /soccer field that exists in the southwest corner of the park, the popular skateboard park in the southeast corner of the park, and the spiritual John Denver Sanctuary area in the northern region of the park. Theatre Aspen utilizes a central space in the park for a tent structure that is erected approximately 4 months annually for the purposes of theatre performances. The Rio Grande Recycle Center is also located within the limits of Rio Grande Park (Attachment A). With the planned and privately funded redevelopment of the Theatre Aspen site, an opportunity exists to pursue the vision of enhanced park beauty and storm water improvements at Rio Grande Park within the John Denver Sanctuary. The John Denver Sanctuary officially became a `Specially Designated Space' by public vote in 2001, which protects and solidifies the sanctuary's passive park characteristics. The design and intent for the John Denver Sanctuary includes the Theatre Aspen Tent as an important component to the space, restoration of wetlands and habitat enhancements, improvements to storm water quality systems, and other improvements designed to be consistent with the original design of the Sanctuary that was connected to John Denver's legacy (Attachment B). The proposed improvements would have a similar design character to what was created at the Jennie Adair Wetlands. A new sequence of storm water wetland ponds within the John Denver Sanctuary would function as both a filter to cleanse storm water before it reaches the Roaring Fork River and as a recreational hub with improved park beauty (Attachment C). The proposed improvements would occur in fall 2011 and spring /summer 2012 to work around Theatre Aspen seasons and accommodate funding availability (Attachment D). A major outcome goal for Rio Grande Park is the improvement of pedestrian access to the river and overall improvement to the pedestrian experience throughout the park. Staff at the Parks Department and Engineering Department led a park and storm water master planning effort that occurred in 2003- 2004 to plan for future integrated storm water infrastructure into the greater Rio Grande Park environment and nearby Jennie Adair Wetlands /Stormwater Project. That planning effort led to numerous exciting design innovations that had development potential in Rio Grande Park and were implemented at the Jennie Adair Wetlands in 2006. Funding for the scale of park and storm water improvements envisioned in 2004 -2006 at Rio Grande Park has not been available. Smaller scale incremental funding has provided a storm water `interceptor vault' installation at the Rio Grande Recycle Center in 2005 and a renovation of the recycle center itself in 2010. The positive environmental influences to water quality, wildlife habitat, and improvements to the John Denver Sanctuary and Rio Grande Park align this proposed project with the multiple stated environmental goals of the overall community and City Council's goals related to environmental stewardship. Projects that have been completed with these same goals such as the Maroon Creek Wetlands and the Jennie Adair Wetlands /Stormwater Project have been successful in achieving the same goals stated and have made the community a model for these stewardship activities. Proof of the Page 2 of 4 month staff received important documentation from the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies that the ecological enhancments made to the area surrounding Hallam Lake (Jennie Adair Wetlands) have improved wildlife habitat and water quality so much that new keystone species are beginning to be sighted on the property. Staff have developed a plan (refer Attachment C) that will meet the goal of improving pedestrian access to the river, increase passive recreational opportunities, and significantly improve the function and aesthetics of storm water conveyance of the `East Drainage' through Rio Grande Park. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In order to fund the proposed improvements, staff has worked together collaboratively to find the most appropriate sources of funding and bring them together to complete the project. The proposed funding for the project will be sourced from both the Parks and Open Space Fund (100 Fund) and the Stormwater Fund (160 Fund). All project elements are closely intertwined with the individual missions of these two funds and by combining funding sources, the project can be viable. In addition, staff has been proactive in the design and proposed implementation, and will utilize in -house planning, design, and construction teams to accomplish the bulk of the project. A project budget has been crafted that is very cognizant of current fund balances and provides significant project savings from the once estimated price tag of over $3 million (2004 -2005) for the Rio Grande Park Master Plan. This approach is the same that was utilized on the recently completed Rio Grande Recycle Center, which has become an award winning facility that was constructed and budgeted in much the same way as this project is proposed. Both the Parks and Open Space Fund (100 Fund) and the Stormwater Fund (160 Fund) are financially healthy. Utilization of the proposed funding does not degrade fund balances significantly, leaving funding for future projects and initiatives. The specific funding breakdown for the Rio Grande Park Storm Water Improvements Project includes the following financial breakdown and phasing (Attachment E): Phase 1 East Drainage -2011- $200,000 • Parks and Open Space Fund (100 Fund) = $100,000 • Stormwater Fund (160 Fund) = $100,000 Phase 2 Central Drainage (Mill St.) – 2012- $300,000 • Parks and Open Space Fund (100 Fund) = $100,000 • Stormwater Fund (160 Fund) = $250,000 Total 2011 -2012 Funding Allocation = $550,000 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The environmental implications of this project are significant. The development of this project will have multiple environmental benefits including: • Significant cleansing of major amounts of storm water through the park; • Establishment and restoration of critical riparian and wetland habitat along an impacted section of the Roaring Fork River corridor; • Provision of storm water retention • Important environmental education opportunities Page 3 of 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests City Council recommendation for staff to proceed with proposed redevelopment plans to improve and enhance the configuration of storm water ponds at Rio Grande Park within the John Denver Sanctuary in association with planned improvements by Theatre Aspen in Rio Grande Park for 2011. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to provide direction to staff to proceed with proposed storm water improvements at Rio Grande Park in 2011. Some efficiencies of construction would likely be lost as the Theatre Aspen tent reconstruction project proceeds this spring and improvement to the storm water quality discharge into the river would not occur. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A. Rio Grande Park/John Denver Sanctuary Existing Conditions Aerial Photograph B. John Denver Sanctuary Design Plan July 1998 C. Rio Grande Park Master Plan February 2011 D. Theatre Aspen Proposed Sketch (2) E. Rio Grande Park Stormwater Improvements Phasing Plan Page 4 of 4 . k „ . .„,,,. ..... -1P/ .1‘.:,..641. < I k I j . . t, / 1' i= , / • /T, .., . ., • - - . 1*4t),) ''''..... \ 1 t. t o „., . . . J .., • ' . 1 . %..../ : AV . 4 - iillikt i .0.0 •-'%. N. • a it / --'''''' . !-..., : : • , Cn ''! ' • . . f . . . • - .-• . ,... •-- . , .. -, . ..,, :, „.. .. -.,„ • ...........• r , 1 r : t 0 . 4 -.--... ... • ; .., -. + , ' i ' ...,i ; J.: ,,:: .i . 1.',.,••••,-.• • ..,.... . ... , 1 • .,' 0 Z - it. _. _ . ,. ,,... .. .._ .........• . ,.. _ . , • . , i .. _ . ... ..... . Li.11 ,......,.........._-., ......,-,.. V , • _... 1 $ . ... . , ' 2 • . .rn v • -1 , . ie • ' 4, - • ' • , i- III■ n = -...„, . r ... .•„,,.. •,• - . , .• ...... . . . ............ .., ,....••... • ..„..„... „ ...„ . • : , . .., , . ... . _ ... _ ••. 1 , .. CI . . „ ... „L..- ,-.• • L , • , „ ,......... , , ,.,„,,, , 3 017 , 7d . . . .._... 'IL ' . , . ' Aik ' t '''' '' '' ,. ,..,.. ,,,, , . 304, ...... - . sal* .. „ . . ,i. r I.< , , . • „, ., .. . , .• -- •• • - . .. .„ •,.--: , • .... ...;,... .. .,,. •••_. , t . :;., I- inyt% 0 . .. . -1 . , D 0/ -•".. < , _,..„ ; • - :. ' ,,. '' ',.,-' .• CC „,,,,,,„„„.,._..„.,...... „ „, .,..._ . W > .. . • - • , r ,.'..” • •,, < CC U.I ....., : ,. _ w g - = • 0 - cl- U.J ... 1 .; i 1 pi ' I ' - Z m -•-:' 4' L' . . ------____//. • ' 0 1 1 0 1 ... • - -, - -I • • • . , IX � ' 4 . 0 EX ' Mall 1 - - ' . • -. ,011, . ' 41 Z am< ." . .',::. < -C:. ' moll • ..,, ... -,..A. 0 o Cn I . ,,., ... . . .._....... >. . . ii, • '; ':. '...', 7,.,,,_,,,„, .,„ .-.... ...., : . • ..„.. ... .. ,,,, cr Lu ' ..„.../.4 . . .,,,,„ •, „ . f.,,.... ki- f ,..c,r) Z „. „ :L..... ..... ... . , .. . a ... -_,.-_-, • - • • - :-,_-,,,-' : ...' ' .,... - — Y -;_•4.. ! -If • ...... ., .,.....,„,:::......,' • r,.- 4.,. - • , • • . ,,,,..:,,,, , „- et ,: -,- -•:,-: itrIt• • : _ s,'- i■ a 4:: '• + ' ..1,.. ., :. 141 :‘,: ,, ::... 4 - .. - . • - • :.. . , _ ••••,. - ,f, • ., • . . . • '''.• ':',* CO • - -., .-.. • . • ,`,•,• • ..,..4,c: ''. ' 'fr: ' '''' .1. . .. • • ..,..... X . ..„.....,_ „.. CL , IX . Ai . . , - - . . - rir ' • . .. . . ... . U.I I ; . , ......,„. . „... .. . .„ ... . L. 13 . „ •!,...' 0 An 0 , . 00 • i�si Z • < ., ... Ct Z Z 0 mild 1 • , , IX 1 4.. . , .. ... • .. _ . ..... .. .. _ . ..„ ...... _ . ..._ .. .. . 0 , ■ : ' . . . I■ ; LL:..' Loo •_ , ILI i'• .•. 0 .:: ' '''' - . . . „ , • . ''';'' < '....,:e'.,-.,:.,-,.,-,-..'.',,,, 0 ':• -')..., . .- . .. ,, .. , , ..: , ..00: : •..it , •. • : . Cr ..:. .... . .. ._. ... .. ... 1.1.1 ... . .., C..) ::. • J r '....'‘;'/ </\\\, • ,N, . : $ • k' . . •• LLI < \ \ . „ .... .- ....., ..,_ ... -- -.,, -• (1) • ... \ ... _ ,• . •., -.. . "4 - \ . _ ... U.I it. , ..-- , ,..?'. ,.• .- ,04... • -..; -, t .... , ... . .:.. . • . 1 ,. . . . .• ( (1) ,... • .,.• . - - • • . , , • .A , 1. 1 Z < • -,. \ '`v - d • .. . - - - • , . . — Z „. .. . • •.• ,,, •• t• • .._.. • 1, 0 6 . '. , • Cn Cr LIU . . ...,.. . .4. .„,,, ... . . , ,.: -,. .... uj i . V Ilt, ::•-, .'. , . • , X I-- . , >•• '* --- , ,,,,- e .0z.„ •„...-,. . ..... ,, .„...... ...... : . ..,. . = . " .. , +L.. . . 4157.- ix . 0.- ..4.-,.. ..,. , .147- • . .... < 44 : .. _ . . 4 $ ' .• , . .. . ... . .,..„. , . . ... „,,,...,,,..._•....,. , , ,,...., , i .„.„ . . , .. .. ... ..... .. .., -..,i, 4110 • : 4 4 -•-* . 1 - • . :'''' Ill'Cj ••••ps .,. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. • . , . . - - , - .... Z . , --....... . , .. . . . ..,.. . ' . . UNI . ... ... .. Cn 1111% 1 1011 , ' 4 , .. •-'.- / ' Cr C Ak < . . . . l UM .. . .. ± 1 1 ., . Z =NM , '''' ...'..:4 ” ' '':'' ',' t '''' "'; 0 ' ' ei. • 6 . - • 4,' l''. •,.. - ' .. ''. ' 4 'g..', . ''. ' . •••4::., 4. :::.. :-- • , ...;•',:i. NY ..',: ul ',... ,. .0, ....___.L.i ,. ".„ " • i ••• . o ,, .. -, •gfy ' •-•'.F . i.'• 6 ''' ..':' iti .e-. CL . „,". .. • I' • , . . . ,.. :'•i,. - :: : ,.. - 4..,. -,. ..s.'• -,-. ::,•,., ••:,.... . • e :. •-- w ..... . ,..„....,,. ,...... ._. ...... ......, ..• . ... ., ., , ... ... , ... ,.. . . , .. . ,.. ,, ....... _ . ,,. . . ... . . . .• _ A. : . ,.., ,... • . . - ....,,,, , ..,., ,.... __. _ .. ...... .. , .. ..„ . .,., ... _ .. .,.. .... . • . . . . . ..... .._ _ _,...., M 1 — Z W 1 V ,..,..\,4.. ,r_, , _ _ . 4/..- : .,..._ , .,,, \ .. _ et ,' ■ ,z0 li c -'. l • • • • p . ` • 'J : c . �. .. r Ar • 1 P+ 1 .. • r � p r .7.•''' #o I '•.<.:' .. I S 76 - , , • At A 1 , . -..- K �p j ,4- ,.. 1 ,' r ai l I t 11111 t t - *1 7 7 , 40010114 . /141- 6.„.. :: '' pi* ---- ' 10 7 0k i y! 1 r / fp • T -,, ! • • • I j f : 1' ti i Olt 1 ti ` '.. 670 161 ''' 4 ' • o ' . • ¢ ` tr: i y _ ; # w . V 1 .4 y -sh A . / ' '1' '' ' '4 4 . • :a ' ► ,. � 4 ,,1;' x , .. 4 ; " / V . , r t ® • \ii\ -,r 7/ -Z, 1 , . ; . i.....:Ict i liS , • - • \\I t 1 1 : . 1 '.1, , i f -', , 4 4 4 Q i : KJ I . ": .olii>ell , . 1 Q 1 . 11114(h. i 4 11 1 i .k* if P 't,..,. .41 . )por , I • ( .. e .,5 ) 1_ 41441fr i ll91. I it i tiii ft. I iik ki 'Iv 31, \ + • 0 N z W �� 1 r i — •w w ___,.. y / ` / ✓ / /�� i ii"'` _ r __...___ _ _ ; \ • � ,�I ' 4:: .. _ ! - ~- 1:1-• 1 ° .. s' -"� --- / �� ' — ,..... a ,_ (� // 7,- /r/ If w . 1/ r / MA { 7,,: �� � I j I f �/ 4' i y y a ��j� // / • ,,. , J I 4 i `� 'f .'• /' , '' ' \� / 0' It er .... .22/ ,......;----- - =_-_ ----.......,... ••••••-•-. ____. ..,..- . - / / / i t f ... . --. . .4,,(;., \\ ) / // s A �— / / %' / / ^ ,Mtn /% s .1 \� W -- ., :: 2 ;-/7 .- '' ------ --- ".--- \ . . . liwl / ti i i Oh I / , / * 1 �� /i F .b' E > Cr CC /r--::;---(_} t 'il �' L R} ; :rj T 1� W z cc r= LAJ 1 V ...,: .. ---- V.,...... *0- 1 li / ' ..• i 4 ?‘r. if •.w i° x z ' \ . Is ' . I I 4 I 1 IIP 4 ' " Nit 0 i ,,,,, , to • . 4. i �+ J 77 In y', r/i ` 1 'r1�yf \ 1 :,,,,,, op I 1 ..." 'L ./7 . / , ./.. i '."-.‘ AI IL ' .1 . . } el f /, � � `( � . \ %+�' .�r* ,I1) c ti r + 3 1- �y J1 ' � r • 1 .... 1 ' . - el .. _____ --- ----\ 41 ir 494, 1 1 , V . - .„- :, * tt•._ , ...-tiv . IP • 4eitt '.../. ; 04. . Igh. # - - ,..:•:,- ., a �r ' - *°, - r \ \\ :At 1 f 1 .^ $ • '4 • `' t .4i,''''' ` W \ *9 ' • C.,, ,,,,..._ / . N N . / 7 1 at N N. NNNNNNNNNN: N 1. . . ! .4111'' - t 7-/-/--;->s Iiie-ir/z ,,, • i ..r., ...,•. . 4 , . iNNN .... .1 /(.... . , ..... r , • . . -1. • a. La ti ,s , Q cc \ \ i / % O / . si 0 I ) ,. , y. 4.' ') ' %, t 14r / n ' +' l . , • k wr • `/ j ( kt 1 1 ct �� ! C) i..._. -&--- Z ,\ s--- / ' CI " y, Z U = ,., Q x n . :._,., _,,,..; .. •• . . 1 _ " z Lll - it w : .-- r (D t `� r• �; i_ _ / � k 1 ' 'tea 4 ' ` • � UJ i I ill 1— tie ,.. 41 ). ' r '''' 4111 - .., .- '" , ., t., .. ,. -. ki E t ii . , i Cr . J. - ..... CL < 1 ,. „,...., ..... ... :.;,., .,:_.:;_,: ur,.... ,......./...: ,•,., -,:., . cti ,„ . t -. e-,..c... . Ili u_ - as - .� We ' - Z ;z •■ v ', .....tiy,:',2) • . - - 1.11 W Cr R 1 ■ c `�., ` A 1 - .41 . IP . 14 ilftrii `' _ "` 11! 0 I1. ID ;_• I e x ... I:: = - 4; CL ,, , .. w. ._ „.•:,....• - 1111L6 i? Aw • 1 - i0 , mo w -.. A, r ; -, 5-, _' ;. N ,,��✓ Y ' i ' r 2i Ilk : 111 1 W 1: •_ � X41 • Cr) .T ~ � I JT!!! if �y W CC C 3 r F.. : " • . , 'sal 'AT P - A ..' 410 ''.- ' ,.:. 1 1A F y N q M )ii . W O w II I id I S:, icr ,,,,, _ ..,4,,, 4 . • ` ,. , 0. I „„ ,,:_,. s •M1 ♦ r,� �� r . I a �'- R s , . y¢ �,,.. Q `�'\� • � . '4 1 si � a 1 CC n • * it .: O .,ne _ .„:„..„.x: 3..1,,..; o , 41) .. , _ . pp . w 0 ., F *Ht C.� Q „,,, 41--44*:-. ' x W rte__ 6'' 2 111 , W r o w^ f- ,« z j o � W 1. t y E Z W L t .. N W Q ; ¼ h e:1 Q AN `3 ' _ x N Z 3 a 3 v a ,. __.,,, 4. j., t . ...„„, !'4 �.. a � -'ZL '. cr 0 W J 0 W O'7 00 4 ; i ' . : 4l ' w O a ° c 4!; ,._ ui L Y , -,31 , - 4'. F - d {f? . '. . l''' R.,t, . : a Ulm iz < : 11 � ' ' .72,,; ' 1 .50 ; 1 •j ' 2"....;4:''. Ma 9N 1 j . . • f 4 F Y Ip ., • 7�[i ' 1 • ` • 1 r i . � � � y �Y * 41T +T4 - �• lip �F I ' . - ' c _ c �' a d _ _ o y,,.r T y1'1 . : may, � ' : "a' n. J. °M a` r i s f [ I° j� p y NY r . ii . 51 *.0 . . . - , ,„ 4 . 4 ..,1 1414 0 ....i Cr CC � W � _/..” f O: 4 # ' '-' " . s e.i. .t a ' sits � d w 0 z 0 i sr 00 .'Itt k ° 'V CO _ Ct z ; N + v, . 4/k. I + Li t it r d i t A * 4fr MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: April Barker Long, Stormwater Manager, Engineering 0 THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: February 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 22, 2011 Work Session RE: Stormwater Fee -In -Lieu of Detention REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council direction regarding implementation of a fee -in -lieu of detention. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In May 2007, Council passed an ordinance that implemented a $2.88 fee to be charged to each square foot of a site's entire impervious area, at the time of development or redevelopment exceeding 500 square feet of impervious area. In the fall of 2009, Council directed staff to examine the equity of the fee as it applies to development and redevelopment, particularly how it applies to existing development at the time of additions to or redevelopment of any portion of the site, and to analyze other applications of the fee to improve equity. Council also directed staff to evaluate how changes to the amount and application of the fee would change revenues for the stormwater fund. BACKGROUND: The needs of the stormwater program were analyzed by staff, consultants, and Citizens' Review Committee (CRC) in 2006, resulting in a Stormwater Utility Business Plan and Supplement. This Plan was presented to Council and recommended program improvements and capital improvement projects totaling $31 million. The group also reviewed and recommended funding mechanisms to generate revenue for the improved stormwater program. In May 2007, Council approved a system development fee, estimated to generate $19 million over 15 years (or $1.27 million annually), to be assessed against development and redevelopment. In November 2007, voters approved a mil levy of 0.65 mills that would generate $12 million over 15 years (or $860,000 on average annually). The approved mil rate of the tax is 0.65. However, due to recent high property valuations, Council has limited the mil to 0.49. The mil was applied to property tax bills beginning in 2008 and has generated approximately $860,000 annually. The stormwater system development fee (SDF) is defined and codified in the City of Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 25.18. A fee of $2.88 per square foot of total impervious area is assessed against all properties that develop or redevelop more than 500 square feet of impervious Page 1 of 3 1 area. The purpose of the fee was to provide funding necessary to construct, maintain and improve the City's stormwater facilities. The fee has been assessed to development and redevelopment projects since November 2007. Revenues from the fee that have been collected from November 2007 to August 2010 equal approximately $1.8 million or $600,000 annually. Council has discussed the equity in applying the fee to existing and undisturbed impervious areas at the time of an addition to the property. For example, if an existing 1000 sq ft home (footprint) added a 500 sq ft impervious driveway, the system development fee assessed for the property would be $2.88 x 1500 sq ft = $4,320.00. The question of concern was the appropriateness of applying the fee to the existing impervious area (in the example above, the 1000 sq ft). In November 2010, staff presented several different fee applications that could resolve the equity problem of the system development fee while still meeting the stormwater management needs of the City. Council favored dropping the system development fee and adopting a new detention requirement that had the option of a voluntary fee -in -lieu of detention. Council directed staff to return with more details of the fee -in -lieu of detention approach (FIL). It should be noted that, while the FIL will be viewed as more equitable than our current system development fee approach, implementation of the FIL is not expected generate the revenue needed to implement the stormwater program as it was planned in 2006. It might be necessary to investigate replacement or supplementary forms of funding for the capital program in the future. DISCUSSION: Staff has developed a fee -in -lieu of detention program that allows development and redevelopment projects to either provide detention to historic rates or pay a fee, based on the cost of providing that detention, to the City's stormwater fund. More information about the development, basis, and application of fee are explained in Appendix A — Frequently Asked Questions. To implement the fee -in -lieu of detention program, the following steps are necessary: • Modify the Urban Runoff Management Plan to include new detention standards and the fee -in -lieu of detention option. • Adopt an ordinance recognizing the fee amount and applicability. • Educate the development community and general public of the fee option. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Implementation of a FIL is expected to generate approximately $500,000 per year in revenue for the stormwater fund. In 2010, the current system development fee is generated approximately $512,000. In order to fully fund the stormwater program as intended in 2006, $1.2 million is needed annually in fees in addition to $860,000 in tax revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If the stormwater program cannot fund capital projects planned to upgrade the capacity of the stormwater system, development and redevelopment projects will be required to detain stormwater runoff on their sites, releasing it at a rate that the current stormwater system can handle without flooding downstream properties. Page 2 of 3 If the stormwater program cannot fund capital projects planned to improve the quality of runoff discharged into the Roaring Fork River sediment loads from the City will be about 2,480 tons per year. This is about 16.5 times the natural load of about 150 tons of sediment per year. At this rate the Roaring Fork River will likely remain categorized as "severely degraded" and will likely continue to experience changes in river bed, river flow, and river temperature; decreases in riparian habitat and species; and decreases in trout populations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council proceed with a fee -in -lieu of detention by modifying the Urban Runoff Management Plan and adopting an ordinance that recognizes the fee and its applicability. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 3 of 3 A. d%x A . Frequently Asked Questions: Aspen's Stormwater Fee -In -Lieu What is the problem we are solving? Aspen's stormwater infrastructure is aging and significantly undersized. Many of the downtown pipe systems cannot carry even a moderate storm's runoff. Therefore, during most intense rain events, water runs dangerously in streets which can cause damage to buildings and threaten the safety of the public. Additionally, the Roaring Fork River is impacted by these damaging flows. Stormwater runoff from urban areas increases pollutant load, causes erosion, damages stream habitat and increases flooding risks along the river. How are we solving the problem? x Aspen is addressing the problem in two ways. First, a capital :;(- a construction plan has been developed and is being updated. ; ,',: a ;.. The capital plan estimates that over $15 million must be spent ", i _ on repairing or enlarging pipes and drains, and in protecting V the Roaring Fork from the pollution that stormwater runoff ,;t —ta carries. Second, Aspen has upgraded its design requirements for new development and redevelopment from one of allowing . developments to increase flooding and pollution downstream to a more modern standard of reducing those flows to something that more closely mimics the natural flow and reduces the Y Ilk impact of development. What are the particulars of the new standard? Impervious area increases the volume and timing of stormwater runoff (i.e. rain runs off of hard surfaces harder and faster than it runs off of grassy fields). The new standard requires development and redevelopment to manage and control stormwater so that it leaves the site at the same rate it would leave the site if it were covered with grasses. This management of stormwater is typically referred to as detention — capturing runoff, holding it for some period of time, and then releasing it at a controlled rate. The goal is to mimic nature and trick the river into thinking Aspen is a natural area rather than an urban area. i : , �1 r ";'.4%„, ` ; t What projects will this new standard apply to? ., • F ` � . .. 1 ', ' �'- ,, % The new standard will be applied to all new developments and i redevelopments that add or disturb and replace 1,000 square . _ �. ..d,,i ■ i; � . a ,, � / feet of impervious area or more. If the disturbed or added t i f ' KWAY impervious area is less than 25% of the total area of the site, then only the new area must be so treated. If the disturbed or added impervious area is more than 25% of the total area of the site, then the site shall be treated as a new development ' x and the total site shall meet the new detention requirements. This 25% trigger is based on studies that show that once an --= area is 25% developed, the receiving stream becomes significantly impaired. ,..... ..., What if a site cannot meet these standards? Is there an alternative? The City recognizes that this requirement may be difficult or costly to meet on any particular site. So the City has provided the option of payment of a voluntary fee -in -lieu of detention. The amount of the fee is based on an estimate of the cost of providing detention in Aspen. However, if a developer can show that their own cost of detention is less than the City estimate, the City has the option of accepting this lesser amount or asking the developer to go ahead and build detention on -site. Illi . THE Orr ckMIN How much is the fee and how was the fee calculated? The Urban Runoff Management Plan approach for detention sizing was used to determine storage requirements for a range of typical site sizes in Aspen. The average calculation showed that the volume of detention needed is approximately 7.35 cubic feet of rainwater runoff per 100 square feet of impervious area for the maximum design storm. The City requested cost estimates from local design engineers and contractors which determined that it costs approximately $70.00 per cubic foot of detention in Aspen. The fee -in -lieu then works out to be $515 per 100 square feet of impervious area added or redeveloped. For a 6000 square foot lot-line-to-lot- line development, approximately 441 cubic feet of detention is required OR the site can pay a $30,870 fee -in -lieu of "• ' ' detention to the City. Do l still have to pay the Stormwater System Development Fee? No. The stormwater system development fee will no longer • be collected by the City. There is no mandatory stormwater fee now, only the optional fee -in -lieu of detention that will - only be paid in cases where the project does not want to provide detention on -site. -... How will the revenue from the Fee -In-Lieu be used by the City? The fees collected through the fee -in -lieu program will be • used to improve conveyance and detention throughout the • City and reduce the impacts of urban runoff on the river. The concept behind the optional fee is that detention must be provided somehow, someway. Sites can provide the required detention themselves, or the City can improve conveyance and detention downstream so that individual sites don't have to worry about it. In most cases regional (City - provided) detention is ideal, because the City can maintain it and it provides economies of scale. However, in Aspen, where land value is expensive and the funding is short, the City is not able to provide all of the detention needed to support the urban landscape. Therefore, some detention will be handled site by site and some will be handled regionally. Will my project still be required to detain the water quality capture volume? Yes. The quality of stormwater is improved every time it is treated. Therefore, the City is working toward a "treatment train" approach. This is similar to primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment at wastewater treatment plants. Each development and redevelopment in Aspen is required to provide primary treatment. The City's Clean River Initiative builds regional water quality treatment facilities that function as secondary treatment facilities. So, yes, each project will still be required to detain and treat the water quality capture volume calculated for the site. The calculation of the fee took into account that some detention would be provided in the treatment of the water quality capture volume. Are there any exceptions? Can I apply for a variance? Yes. Some lots in town are part of a larger development, such as Burlingame, and the detention for the entire development was provided in the master plan and has already been built. Additionally any development can apply for a variance by following the variance procedures outlined in the Urban Runoff Management Plan. I can think of a lot more questions - are there answers? This voluntary fee is a new idea developed to assist developers in meeting detention requirements. There will be many site specific questions, and answers will be developed, vetted, and placed in a policy document. Every attempt will be made to provide fair and impartial policies. However, in the end, developments must meet applicable modern standards in all aspects of development: electrical, plumbing, concrete mix... and stormwater runoff. These standards are there to protect all City residents and visitors, and to promote safety and preserve and enhance the quality of the City that makes Aspen an attractive place to live and recreate. 2